ÿWPC02 …# VU:a %› 0 ¡w@¥ 4å ù 0 H 0DP 0J” Þ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dy BÝU*ú D3$B)WDC€ 0@à AMÀP#ß3ÿ¼³Í ¢€"©"$oË&v~:)vÓ¸* AO‹0ÆÚ0 0D 1 D/ä1 B2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ ² ³ ´ Dµ ¶ · ¸ ¹ Dº » Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xÄ (ø(3H’$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€?ÏXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌDecemberÏ4,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔA€TBI€Agent€with€expertise€in€serology€testified€that€the€blood€on€the€ground€and€on€the€quiltÏwere€consistent€with€the€victimððs€blood€and€that€the€blood€was€definitely€not€the€appellantððs.€€Apparently,ÏDNA€testing€was€also€performed€by€the€FBI€and€the€State€offered€testimony€on€this€issue€as€well.€€ThatÏtestimony€was€omitted€from€the€trial€transcript€submitted€in€the€record€before€us.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔMr.€Sanderson€was€unable€to€appear€and€testify€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€due€to€seriousÏhealth€problems.€€At€that€time,€he€was€hospitalized€and€awaiting€a€heart€transplant.Ì ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔEarlier€proof€had€shown€that€the€victimððs€car,€discovered€by€authorities,€was€a€1979€blueÏThunderbird.Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔCounsel€Steve€Hale€testified€that€he€reviewed€his€records€and€was€unable€to€find€that€theÏdefense€made€a€formal€motion€for€a€continuance.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔAppellant€initially€raised€this€ground€in€his€pro€se€petition.€€Proof€was€taken€on€this€issue€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing€and€summarized€in€the€statement€of€facts€of€appellantððs€brief.€€However,€we€note€thatÏno€discussion€on€this€issue€appears€in€the€brief.€€We€have€chosen€to€address€the€issue€irrespective€ofÏthe€omission.Ì ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔThe€waiver€of€appeal€is€not€included€in€the€record€before€us.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔNo€evidence€was€introduced€in€contradiction.Ì ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔIt€appears€that€appellant€did€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€as€a€result€received€theÏminimum€sentence.€€However,€the€transcript€of€that€hearing€was€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€ÏWe€are€unaware€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense€about€which€the€appellant€testified€at€thatÏhearing.Ì eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔCounsel€should€ensure€that€a€complete€record€on€appeal€is€submitted.€€The€record€before€usÏcontains€an€incomplete€trial€transcript,€no€transcript€from€the€sentencing€hearing,€no€waiver€of€the€right€toÏappeal,€nor€the€technical€record€from€the€trial.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€JULY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌKENNETH€LEE€PIPKIN,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9608„CC„00328€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSTEWART€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€E.€BURCH,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌShipp€R.€Weemsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌRobbie€T.€Bealà àà àà àà àà àPeter€M.€Coughlanà àà àÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€160à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌCharlotte,€TN€37036à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDan€Mitchum€AlsobrooksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGeorge€SextonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHumphrey€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWaverly,€TN€37185ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PARTÌDELAYED€APPEAL€GRANTEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Kenneth€Lee€Pipkin,€appeals€as€of€right€the€denial€of€his€post„conviction€petition€by€the€Stewart€County€Circuit€Court.€€On€appeal,€he€contends€thatÏhis€trial€counsel€was€œineffective:›€(1)€for€failing€to€remove€a€biased€juror€from€the€juryÏpanel;€(2)€for€failing€to€challenge€the€qualifications€of€an€expert€witness;€(3)€for€failingÏto€thoroughly€cross„examine€œa›€witness;€(4)€for€seeking€a€continuance€of€the€caseÏwhich€was€prejudicial€to€appellant;€and€(5)€for€failing€to€properly€inform€appellantÏabout€his€right€to€appeal.€€œWe›€conclude€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€advisingÏappellant€about€pursuing€an€appeal,€thus€resulting€in€a€waiver€of€that€right€which€wasÏnot€voluntary€or€knowing.€€Therefore,€we€grant€appellant€the€opportunity€to€pursue€aÏdelayed€œappeal.€€In€all€other€respects,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.Ìà@ àò òFactual€Backgroundó ó›Ìà àMarilyn€June€Adkins€disappeared€on€December€30,€1990€and€lawÏenforcement€officials€found€physical€evidence€to€indicate€that€foul€play€was€involved.€ÏAuthorities€discovered€her€abandoned€car€at€the€end€of€a€deserted€road€and€itÏappeared€that€someone€had€tried€to€run€it€over€an€embankment.€€Not€too€far€away,Ïthe€contents€of€Adkinsðð€purse€were€found€strewn€on€the€side€of€the€road€in€a€loggingÏarea.€€A€few€miles€away€in€a€pine€thicket,€they€found€a€pool€of€blood€on€the€groundÏand€a€watch€belonging€to€Adkins.€€Near€the€Paris€Landing€Bridge€in€Stewart€County,Íauthorities€found€a€quilt,€stained€with€blood,€and€a€pair€of€brown€jersey€work€glovesÏthat€had€been€thrown€over€an€embankment.€€Despite€extensive€searches€and€efforts,Ïthey€were€unable€to€locate€the€victimððs€body.€€In€September€of€1992,€appellant€wasÏindicted€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Adkins.€€Her€body€had€not€been€recovered.€€Ìà àAppellantððs€trial€was€set€in€August€of€1993,€but€was€continued€due€to€defenseÏcounselððs€difficulties€in€interviewing€witnesses.€€œAfter€the€continuance,€rather›Ïunexpectedly,€a€commercial€fisherman€discovered€the€remains€of€a€body€in€theÏTennessee€River€on€August€23,€1993.€€Only€the€lower€portion€of€a€body,€from€theÏwaist€down,€was€recovered.€€At€appellantððs€trial€in€March€of€1994,€the€State€offeredÏproof€that€the€remains€were€that€of€a€white€female,€between€the€ages€of€37€and€42,Ïapproximately€5'5"€tall.€€This€was€consistent€with€the€physical€description€of€theÏvictim.€€Testimony€also€indicated€that€based€upon€the€degree€of€decomposition,€theÏbody€had€likely€been€submerged€for€one€to€five€years.€€In€addition,€some€of€theÏvictimððs€family€members€identified€the€pants€and€shoes€that€were€found€on€theÏremains.€€The€cause€of€death€could€not€be€ascertained€due€to€the€incompleteÏremains.€€Ìà àIn€implicating€the€appellant,€testimony€reflected€that€a€witness€had€seen€theÏvictim€and€appellant€together€in€appellantððs€truck€at€a€boat€dock€several€hours€beforeÏshe€disappeared.€€The€State€alleged€that€the€two€were€having€an€affair.€€ExpertÏtestimony€demonstrated€that€the€blood€found€on€the€ground€and€the€quilt€wasÍconsistent€with€that€of€the€victim.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€The€State€alleged€the€quilt€belonged€to€theÏappellant,€introducing€testimony€that€he€often€covered€the€seat€of€his€truck€with€aÏpatchwork€quilt,€similar€to€the€one€discovered.€€The€brown€work€gloves€found€with€theÏquilt€were€shown€to€be€of€the€kind€appellant€used€in€operating€a€chain€saw€œin›€hisÏlogging€œwork.›€œThey›€smelled€of€œgasoline›€œand€similar›€gloves€were€also€found€in€aÏsearch€of€appellantððs€home.€€Ìà àAppellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€second€degree€murder€of€Adkins.€ÏAppellant€received€the€minimum€fifteen€year€sentence€as€a€result€of€œhis›€conviction.€ÏOn€March€25,€1996,€he€filed€a€pro€se€post„conviction€petition€alleging€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€trial€court€appointed€counsel€and€held€an€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€After€accepting€proof€on€the€issues,€the€trial€court€œdismissed›€appellantððsÏpetition,€ruling€that€œhe›€did€receive€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÌœÌÌà@ àò òAnalysisó óÌ›à àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÍby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÏ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€inability€to€prove€either€prong€results€inÏfailure€of€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697.€€Ìà àThe€most€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€is€demonstrating€the€prejudice€heÏhas€suffered€by€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevail€on€that€ground,€the€appellantÏmust€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€Ìà àIn€order€to€sustain€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€appellant€must€prove€hisÏallegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„210(f)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€On€review,€this€Court€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€ÏWe€give€deference€to€questions€about€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€asÏthey€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÍòòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993)€(citation€omitted).Ìà àAppellant€first€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏchallenge€a€biased€juror€during€voir€dire.€€Appellantððs€testimony€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€reflected€that€he€had€once€gone€on€a€date€with€potential€juror€Vicki€Angel.€ÏWhen€Angel€denied€knowing€the€appellant€during€voir€dire,€he€informed€his€counselÏthat€he€had€dated€her,€that€she€might€be€ð ðagainst€him,ðð€and€requested€counsel€toÏremove€her€from€the€jury.€€Appellantððs€wife,€a€native€of€Stewart€County€who€activelyÏparticipated€in€jury€selection,€corroborated€appellantððs€testimony.€€She€also€toldÏcounsel€that€Angel€lied€when€she€denied€knowing€the€appellant.Ìà àAt€trial,€appellant€was€represented€by€three€retained€attorneys,€JamesÏSanderson,€William€Hatton,€and€Steve€Hale.€€Both€Hale€and€Hatton€testified€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Hale€testified€that€he€remembered€appellant€telling€themÏthat€he€had€dated€Angel.€€He€stated€that€when€they€asked€appellant€if€she€would€be€aÏproblem,€he€replied,€ð ðNo.ðð€€Considering€that€Angel€did€not€reveal€the€relationship€andÏthat€appellant€did€not€perceive€her€to€be€a€problem,€Hale€testified€that€they€believedÏshe€might€be€helpful.€€Therefore,€they€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€strike€her€fromÏthe€jury€panel.€€Similarly,€Hatton€recalled€that€appellant€told€them€that€he€and€AngelÍhad€a€pretty€good€relationship€and€that€she€would€probably€be€fair.€€He€did€notÏremember€appellant€asking€them€to€remove€Angel.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€counsel€exercised€their€best€judgment€in€keepingÏAngel€on€the€jury€panel.€€The€trial€court€stated€its€belief€that€counsel€felt€she€wasÏsomewhat€of€a€ð ðwildcardðð€œwho›€could€be€beneficial€to€appellant.€€It€found€that€thisÏtactical€decision€was€not€ineffective.€€We€find€this€conclusion€supported€by€the€recordÏand€will€not€disturb€this€finding.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€€œAppellant›€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€on€this€issue.€€Ìà àNext,€appellant€argues€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€challengeÏthe€qualifications€of€one€of€the€Stateððs€numerous€expert€witness.€€He€argues€thatÏcounsel€should€have€objected€to€the€qualifications€of€Emily€Craig€because€herÏmethods€were€not€subjected€to€the€òòFryeóó€test.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comments.€€He€also€questions€her€status€as€an€expert€because€she€didÏnot€possess€a€doctoral€degree.Ìà àEmily€Craig€was€proffered€by€the€State€to€testify€as€an€expert€on€the€race€of€theÏhuman€remains€recovered€from€the€river.€€Her€preliminary€testimony€demonstratedÏthat€she€was€a€doctoral€student€studying€under€Dr.€William€Bass€at€the€University€ofÏTennessee€in€forensic€anthropology.€€She€had€a€masterððs€degree€from€the€MedicalÏCollege€of€Georgia€and€was€slated€to€receive€her€doctoral€degree€in€approximatelyÏfive€months.€€Her€specialty€in€forensic€anthropology€was€in€the€knee€and€shoulder,€anÍarea€in€which€she€had€extensive€training€from€working€at€the€Houston€OrthopaedicÏClinic€for€fifteen€years.€€Ìà àCraig€explained€that€she€had€spent€the€last€three€years€researching€a€methodÏto€determine€a€personððs€race€by€measuring€the€end€of€the€femur€and€the€angle€in€theÏknee€joint.€€In€addition€to€being€the€topic€of€her€dissertation,€she€had€also€written€anÏarticle€on€œthat›€subject€which€had€been€accepted€for€publication.€€She€stated€that€thisÏarea€was€not€a€new€field€of€study,€but€rather€a€new€method.€€Using€this€method,€sheÏtestified€that€the€human€remains€in€this€case€were€of€a€white€or€Caucasian€person.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€Craig€stated€that€she€believed€her€methods€had€beenÏgenerally€accepted€by€the€forensic€science€community.€€Ìà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€counsel€Bill€Hatton€testified€that€he€and€SandersonÏdiscussed€all€the€expert€testimony€prior€to€trial€and€stated€that€they€had€notice€ofÏCraigððs€qualifications.€€He€recalled€that€the€district€attorney€questioned€her€thoroughlyÏabout€her€qualifications€before€the€jury.€€He€also€remembered€her€backgroundÏincluded€authoring€a€dissertation€on€the€topic€and€fifteen€to€twenty€years€of€educationÏand€research€in€the€field.€€Hatton€testified€that€based€on€œthat›€information,€they€choseÏnot€to€challenge€her€as€an€expert€witness.€€Ìà àOn€this€issue,€the€trial€court€found€that€expert€witnesses€do€not€necessarilyÏhave€to€possess€a€doctoral€degree.€€It€acknowledged€that€Craigððs€methods€were€notÏsubjected€to€the€òòFryeóó€test,€but€found€no€indication€in€record€that€she€would€not€haveÍmet€this€test.€€More€importantly,€however,€the€trial€court€found€that€appellant€was€notÏprejudiced€by€her€testimony€because€it€was€cumulative.Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€appellant€suffered€no€prejudice€from€theÏalleged€error.€€When€Craig€testified,€the€State€had€already€presented€testimony€fromÏDr.€Charles€Harlan,€the€chief€medical€examiner€for€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€InÏtestifying€about€the€autopsy€he€performed€on€the€remains,€Dr.€Harlan€stated€that€theÏremains€were€of€a€white€female.€€More€significantly,€the€victimððs€family€membersÏidentified€the€clothing€on€the€remains€as€that€of€the€victim.€€We€agree€with€the€trialÏcourt€that€testimony€from€the€family€members€was€the€most€important€and€persuasiveÏevidence€on€this€issue.€€Even€if€counsel€had€objected€and€Craigððs€testimonyÏexcluded,€we€believe€the€result€would€have€been€the€same.€€Thus,€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€show€prejudice.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€697,€104€S.Ct.Ï2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).Ìà àAppellant€also€believes€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€œmoreÏthoroughly›€cross„examine€Billy€Crane,€a€key€witness€for€the€State.€€Crane€testifiedÏthat€he€was€at€the€Dyerððs€Creek€Boat€Dock€on€the€afternoon€of€December€30,€1990.€ÏWhile€there,€he€saw€a€newer€œmodel›€œred›€pickup€truck€and€a€œ1970's›€model€blueÏThunderbirdœ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€parked€side€by€side.€€No€one€was€seated€in€the€Thunderbird.€€However,Íhe€noticed€a€man€and€woman€sitting€in€the€truck€talking.€€He€also€testified€that€as€heÏleft€the€boat€dock€and€proceeded€to€the€main€road,€he€noticed€the€blue€ThunderbirdÏbehind€him.€€As€he€pulled€onto€Highway€79,€he€also€noticed€the€red€truck€wasÏfollowing€the€blue€Thunderbird.€€Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€Crane€was€unable€to€say€that€the€man€he€saw€in€theÏpickup€truck€was€the€appellant.€€He€stated€the€woman€had€brown€hair,€but€he€did€notÏknow€her.€€Furthermore,€Crane€was€unable€to€say€whether€the€truck€was€a€ChevroletÏor€GMC€and€he€stated€there€were€no€distinguishing€features€about€the€truck.Ìà àProof€at€trial€had€demonstrated€that€appellant€was€driving€a€newer€model,€red,ÏChevrolet€pickup€truck€in€December€of€1990.€€Appellant€argues€that€counsel€shouldÏhave€used€pictures€of€appellantððs€truck€in€his€cross„examination€of€Crane.€€AccordingÏto€appellant,€these€pictures€would€have€shown€that€his€truck€had€several€distinctiveÏaccessories,€such€as€a€black€tailpiece,€black€rails,€and€a€black€hood€scoop.€€His€truckÏalso€had€the€word€ð ðChevroletðð€in€large€black€letters€on€the€back.€€According€toÏappellant,€showing€these€pictures€to€the€jury€would€have€weakened€CraneððsÏtestimony€since€he€testified€that€the€pickup€he€saw€had€no€distinctive€features.Ìà àHatton€testified€that€Crane€was€an€intelligent€and€articulate€witness€and€that€heÏconsidered€his€testimony€very€damaging.€€In€light€of€this,€Hatton€testified€that€hisÏstrategy€was€to€perform€a€brief€cross„examination€and€try€to€get€Crane€to€indicateÏanything€favorable€to€appellantððs€defense.€€The€trial€court€found€that€œto€be€sound›€trialÍstrategy.€€It€noted€that€counsel€was€able€to€get€Crane€to€admit€he€did€not€knowÏwhether€it€was€a€GMC€or€Chevrolet€truck.€€The€trial€court€further€remarked€that€it€isÏoften€wise€not€to€press€for€favorable€testimony€from€witnesses€like€Crane€becauseÏthey€often€offer€more€damaging€information.€€In€the€words€of€the€trial€court,€counselððsÏtactic€ð ðwas€a€good€piece€of€work.ððÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€method€of€cross„examination€of€CraneÏwas€a€tactical€decision€made€by€counsel.€€We€must€give€deference€to€such€decisionsÏif€they€are€informed€ones€that€are€the€result€of€adequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.ÏStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalso€Cooper€v.€Stateóó,Ï849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€€Having€taken€Craneððs€deposition€well€before€theÏtrial,€Hatton€was€aware€of€Craneððs€testimony€and€prepared€his€cross„examinationÏaccordingly.€€We€cannot€fault€his€cross„examination€strategy€for€an€articulate€andÏpersuasive€witness€œwho›€possessed€damaging€information.€€Moreover,€our€review€ofÏthe€record€indicates€œthat€there€was€a›€careful€and€effective€cross„examination€of€theÏwitness.€€Appellant€is€entitled€to€no€relief€on€this€issue.€Ìà àAppellant€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€seeking€a€continuanceÏof€the€trial€when€the€victimððs€body€had€not€yet€been€discovered.€€He€argues€thatÏwithout€a€body,€the€Stateððs€case€was€considerably€weaker€and€may€have€resulted€inÏan€acquittal.Ìà àAccording€to€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€appellantððs€case€wasÏset€for€trial€in€August€of€1993.€€On€that€date,€a€continuance€was€sought€by€theÏdefense× ƒ3 ××  ×€because€œcounsel›€had€not€completed€interviewing€witnesses€and€wereÏexperiencing€difficulty€in€contacting€many€of€them.€€Less€than€one€week€after€the€trialÏcourt€granted€the€continuance,€the€partial€body€was€discovered.Ìà àThe€trial€court€œfound€that€defense€counsel€were€not€ineffective€for€seeking€theÏcontinuance.€€The€trial€judge,€who€presided€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,Ïremembered€that€defense€counsel€were€unable€to€properly€prepare€the€caseÏbecause€many€potential€witnesses€were€unwilling€to€talk€with€them.€€When€heÏlearned€of€this€difficulty€on€the€day€of€trial,€he€notified€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏand€advised€him€that€he€was€going€to€continue€the€case€and€order€that€depositionsÏbe€taken.€€The€witnesses€were€placed€under€subpoena€and€their€depositions€takenÏthe€day€which€had€been€scheduled€for€trial.€€Ìà àAccording€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€the€pivotal€issue€at€that€juncture€of€theÏcase€was€defense€counselððs€preparation€for€trial.€€As€counsel€stated€and€the€trialÏcourt€confirmed,€no€one€expected€the€body€to€appear€more€than€two€years€after€theÏdisappearance.€€Counsel€testified€that€although€in€retrospect€the€continuance€mayÏhave€hurt€the€appellant,€at€that€time,€the€risk€of€going€to€trial€unprepared€was€moreÍsignificant€and€would€have€harmed€appellantððs€case€more.€€We€agree.€€Counsel€wasÏnot€incompetent€for€seeking€a€continuance€in€a€first€degree€murder€trial€involvingÏextensive€expert€testimony€when€they€had€been€unable€to€interview€all€of€the€StateððsÏwitnesses.€€Merely€because€in€hindsight€the€tactic€may€have€been€harmful€toÏappellant€does€not€make€counselððs€assistance€ineffective.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€As€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðWe€demand€competence€ofÏlawyers.€€But€we€certainly€canððt€ask€clairvoyance.ðð€€We€concur€in€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€that€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€this€respect.Ìà àFinally,€appellant€alleges€that€his€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€inÏpersuading€him€to€waive€his€right€to€appeal.× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€appellantÏexplained€that€œMr.€Sanderson›€visited€him€at€the€jail€the€day€after€he€was€convicted.€ÏSanderson€advised€him€not€to€pursue€a€hearing€on€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€He€toldÏappellant€that€there€were€no€trial€errors€and€he€probably€could€not€get€a€new€trial.€ÏHowever,€Sanderson€told€appellant€that€even€if€he€did€get€a€new€trial,€he€would€beÏdefending€first€degree€murder€charges€and€could€get€a€life€sentence.€€Ìà àAfter€appellant€was€sentenced,€he€testified€that€he€wanted€a€hearing€on€aÏmotion€for€new€trial€and€an€appeal.€€Both€he€and€his€wife€tried€to€contact€his€counselÍin€this€regard.€€However,€he€stated€that€counsel€never€visited€him€at€the€jail€again.€ÏInstead,€he€œreceived›€a€waiver€of€appeal€in€the€œmail,›€which€he€signed.× ƒ5 ××  ×€Ìà àAppellantððs€wife€testified€that€she€and€appellant€were€interested€in€pursuing€anÏappeal.€€However,€counsel€advised€her€that€it€was€a€bad€idea€because€appellantÏœcould›€face€first€degree€murder€charges€again.€€In€fact,€she€stated€that€counsel€told€herÏthere€was€a€very€good€chance€on€appeal€that€appellant€would€be€brought€ð ðback€in€onÏfirst€degree€murder€charges.ððœ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€€Counsel€also€advised€Mrs.€Pipkin€that€the€State€hadÏconsidered€the€possibility€of€charging€her€in€the€crime€as€well.€€Mrs.€Pipkin€furtherÏtestified€that€counsel€said€it€would€be€best€not€to€appeal€and€she€inferred€from€hisÏattitude€that€he€did€not€want€to€appeal€the€case.Ìà àSteve€Hale€testified€that€he€talked€with€œthe€appellant›€on€at€least€two€occasionsÏabout€his€sentence€and€an€appeal.€€He€also€testified€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€thereÏwas€no€reversible€error€in€the€record.€€Counsel€explained€further:€ÌÓÓà8 àWe€œhad€had›€conversations€with€[the€district€attorneyððs]€office.€€We€hadÏan€understanding€with€your€office€that€if€Mr.€Pipkin€did€testify€truthfullyÏabout€what€had€happened,€that€your€office€would€not€seekÏenhancement€on€that€point€where€he€would€receive€the€minimumÏsentence.ÌÌà8 àAnd€also€there€had€„„€Throughout€the€course€of€this,€your€office€hadÏoccasionally€raised€the€glimmer€of€possibility€that€you€would€be€lookingÍat€someone€else€to€possibly€prosecute.€€And€you€had€given€„„€YourÏoffice€and,€I€believe€General€Alsobrooks,€actually€„„€But€your€office€hadÏgiven€us€the€assurance€that,€once€again,€if€Mr.€Pipkin€had€testified€andÏtestified€truthfully,€that€you€would€not€seek€to€prosecute€anyone€else€forÏthis€crime.ÌÌÓÓThe€assistant€district€attorney€followed€this€answer€by€asking:ÌÓÓà8 àQ.à àDid€you€explain€to€him€that€by€testifying,€he€was,€in€fact,€waivingÏor€giving€up€his€appeal?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àAnd€did€he€at€some€point€in€time€sign€an€actual€written€waiver€ofÏappeal?Ìà8 àA.à àI€believe€so,€yes.ÓÓ€Ìà àMr.€Hatton€testified€similarly.€€He€recalled€discussing€the€sentence€and€appealÏwith€appellant.€€He€stated€that€he€advised€appellant€to€testify€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€and€give€up€the€right€to€appeal.€€In€response€to€why€he€gave€such€advice,ÏHatton€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWell,€it€was€due€in€part€to€an€agreement€that€we€had€with€yourÏoffice€that€should€Mr.€Pipkin€take€the€stand€at€sentencing€and€testifyÏtruthfully,€that€I€didnððt€believe€there€would€be€any€objection,€as€IÏunderstood€it,€to€the€minimum€sentence,€at€least€no€enhancementÏfactors€would€be€argued.ÌÌà8 àà àAlso,€as€I€understood€as€part€of€our€agreement,€there€would€notÏbe€further€charges€sought€against€any€other€family€member,€which€hadÏbeen€discussed€at€different€times.€ÌÌà8 àà àAnd,€thirdly,€I€recall€an€agreement€between€my€office€and€yourÏoffice€that€if€Mr.€Pipkin€took€the€stand€and€testified€truthfully€that€thereÏwould€be€no€opposition€from€any€law€enforcement€agencies€at€anyÏparole€hearing€he€might€have€at€any€time€in€the€future.ÌÌÓÓ€€The€assistant€district€attorney€then€asked:ÌÓÓà8 àQ.à àBased€upon€those€agreements€and€understandings,€did€you€thenÏrecommend€that€he,€in€fact,€testify€„„Ìà8 àA.à àThatððs€correct.Ìà8 àQ.à à„„€and€give€up€his€right€to€appeal?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€sir.ÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€counselððs€advice€on€the€waiver€of€appeal€was€aÏtactical€decision.€€It€stated€that€counsel€was€unaware€at€that€time€of€the€issue€withÏjuror€Vicki€Angel,€which€may€have€been€fertile€ground€on€appeal,€and€that€the€otherÏmatters€did€not€appear€to€have€any€chance€for€success.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€trading€the€appeal€for€the€minimum€sentence€was€a€good€tactical€decision.Ìà àWe€believe€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€on€thisÏissue.€€Our€review€of€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€waiver€of€appeal€was€partÏand€parcel€of€the€agreement€with€the€district€attorney.€€As€Hatton€testified,€theÏagreement€œwas€that€if€the€appellant€testified€truthfully€at€the€sentencing€hearing:€(1)Ïno€enhancement€factors€would€be€sought;€(2)€no€other€family€member€would€beÏprosecuted;€and€(3)€no€opposition€at€appellantððs€later€parole€hearings.€€TheÏagreement€did€not€include€the€appellantððs€waiver€of€his€appeal.€€Neither€did€HaleððsÏtestimony€indicate€this€was€a€part€of€the€agreement.€€Hale€merely€agreed€that€heÏadvised€appellant€that€by€testifying€he€was€ð ðin€fact€waiving€or€giving€up€his€right€toÏappeal.ðð€€From€our€review,€appellant€was€advised€by€counsel€that€if€he€testified€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€he€was€waiving€his€right€to€appeal.€€With€this€we€cannot€agree.€€ÌÓ` °ƒXã h—XÓà àWhile€the€implication€of€appellantððs€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing× ƒ7 ××  ×›€wasÏthat€he€would€receive€the€minimum€sentence€and,€arguably,€have€no€grounds€uponÏwhich€to€appeal€the€sentence,€we€do€not€find€that€œhis›€testimony€had€any€bearing€onÏhis€right€to€appeal€errors€that€occurred€during€the€trial.€€Therefore,€appellant€was€notÏproperly€informed€about€the€circumstances€surrounding€his€waiver€of€the€right€toÏappeal.Ìà àAn€even€more€egregious€error,€however,€was€Sandersonððs€advice€to€appellantÏduring€his€visit€the€day€after€the€conviction.€€œIt€is€uncontraverted€that€Sanderson€toldÏthe€appellant€and€his€wife€that€it€was€unlikely€that€the€appeal€would€result€in€a€newÏtrial,€but€if€it€did,€the€appellant€would€again€be€facing€a€first€degree€murder€chargeÏwith€a€possible€life€sentence.€€Ìà àThat€advice€was€simply€incorrect.€€When€one€is€convicted€of€a€lesser€offenseÏincluded€in€the€charge€of€the€original€indictment,€after€a€successful€appeal€he€can€beÏretried€only€for€the€convicted€offense€or€a€lesser€charge,€but€not€on€the€greaterÏoffense€with€which€he€was€originally€charged.€€òòGreen€v.€United€Statesóó,€355€U.S.€184,Ï191,€78€S.Ct.€221,€225,€2€L.Ed.2d€199€(1957);›€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€397€S.W.2d€170,Ï173€(Tenn.€1965);€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€391€S.W.2d€637,€639€(Tenn.€1965).€€To€prosecuteÍagain€on€the€greater€offense€violates€principles€of€double€jeopardy.€€òòGreenóó,€355€U.S.Ïat€191.Ìà àTo€illustrate€this€point,€the€defendant€in€òòGreenóó€was€indicted€for€first€degreeÏmurder€and€convicted€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€defendant€appealed€theÏsecond€degree€murder€conviction€and€received€a€new€trial.€€At€the€second€trial,€theÏdefendant€was€tried€again€for€first€degree€murder€and€convicted€of€that€crime.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€held€that€this€violated€principles€of€double€jeopardy.€€òòGreenóó,€355€U.S.Ïat€190„91.€€à àAppellantððs€situation€was€identical.€€He€was€indicted€for€first€degreeÏmurder€and€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€lesser€charge€of€second€degree€murder.€€InÏsuch€circumstances,€the€juryððs€conviction€of€second€degree€murder€acted€as€anÏimplicit€acquittal€of€the€greater€charge€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€€Had€appellantÏappealed€his€conviction€of€second€degree€murder€and€been€granted€a€new€trial,€theÏgreatest€charge€the€State€could€have€sought€in€a€retrial€œwould€be›€second€degreeÏmurder.€€Hence,€Sandersonððs€advice€to€appellant€that€he€would€again€face€firstÏdegree€murder€charges€was€clearly€erroneous.€€œSuch›€advice€does€not€fall€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€We€reverse€the€trialÏcourtððs€holding€on€this€issue.Ìà àThere€is€no€constitutional€right€to€appeal,€but€where€appellate€review€isÏprovided€by€statute,€the€proceedings€must€comport€with€constitutional€standards.€ÏòòState€v.€Gillespieóó,€898€S.W.2d€738,€741€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(citations€omitted).€ÍThus,€appellant€was€entitled€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€pursuing€hisÏright€of€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€397„98,€105€S.Ct.€830,€836„37,€83ÏL.Ed.2d€821€(1985).€€Without€the€proper€advice€about€his€appeal,€we€cannot€say€thatÏappellant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï37(d);€òòCollins€v.€Stateóó,€670€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1984).€€Here,€counselððs€wrongÏadvice€contributed€to€appellantððs€decision€to€waive€his€right€to€appeal.€€Had€appellantÏnot€been€informed€that€a€successful€appeal€could€put€him€at€risk€of€being€again€triedÏon€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder€which€implicated€a€possible€life€sentence,€heÏmay€not€have€chosen€to€waive€his€statutory€right€to€appeal.€€As€a€result,€appellant€hasÏalso€demonstrated€prejudice€from€counselððs€error.€€œConsequently,›€appellant€isÏentitled€to€pursue€a€delayed€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€John€L.€Goodwinóó,€No.Ï01C01„9108„CR„00242€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€November€12,€1992)€(ð ðWhereÏwaiver€of€the€right€to€appeal€results€from€legal€advice€by€counsel€which€was€incorrectÏand€not€given€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases€and€a€direct€appeal€would€have€been€taken€but€for€such€misadvice,€the€waiverÏof€appeal€may€be€œinvalidated.ðð).›Ìà àWe€œtherefore›€grant€appellant€the€opportunity€to€pursue€a€delayed€directÏappeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„213€(Supp.€1996).€€Because€of€the€incompleteÍrecord× ƒ8 ××  ×€of€the€trial€proceedings€before€us,€we€are€unable€to€determine€whether€aÏmotion€for€new€trial€was€filed€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€If€not,€the€trial€court€shallÏpermit€the€appellant€to€file€such€motion€within€thirty€days€of€the€filing€of€the€mandateÏfrom€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„213(a)(3)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge